Dear all,
I believe that the FLD document does not specify completely the the
combination of annotations with remote formulas.
First, it is possible to write
(* _xpto *) _a() @ _univ(1) @ _univ(2)
According to the specification the annotation refers to the whole
formula _a() @ _univ(1) @ _univ(2), but in section 4.2.2 this case is
absent.
So, I understand this as the annotation is referring to the inner
_a(). Is this the intent?
Furthermore, notice that it is also syntactically correct the fragment:
(* _xpto1 *) (* _xpto2 *) (* _xpto3 *) _a() @ _univ(1) @ _univ(2)
How is this handled, since <Remote> does not allow meta information?
Should it be discarded?
Moreover, notice that I have been using local names with "_" before,
as specified by the grammar (this is not done in Example 4 of RIF-FLD).
This is very unpleasant and unnecessary since the initial "_" can be
removed without creating ambiguity in the Grammar. Otherwise, please
correct Example 4 of RIF-FLD.
Best regards,
Carlos Viegas DamÃ¡sio